This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE: To compare the mammographic and pathologic features of screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mammographic and pathologic features of 54 screening-detected and 77 symptomatic cases of DCIS were compared. Patients were aged 30-76 years (mean, 58 years). RESULTS: Diffuse involvement was seen in 10 patients (13%) with symptoms but in none of the screening-detected group (P < .05). The disease was radiologically more extensive in the symptomatic group. Calcifications in the symptomatic group (n = 48) were less likely to have a ductal distribution than those in the screening-detected group (n = 48) (30 [63%] vs 40 [83%], respectively; P < .05). At histologic examination in some cases, the symptomatic group (n = 76) included eight (11%) patients with cribriform-micropapillary, large-cell tumors (P < .05) and less comedocarcinoma (20 [26%] vs 23 [45%], respectively; P < .05) compared with the screening-detected group (n = 51). CONCLUSION: The results show differences in the radiologic and pathologic features of screening-detected and symptomatic DCIS.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Evans et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: